Offspring in Some Families of Former Prisoners of Nazi Concentration Camps

Author

Introduction

The subject of the family life of former concentration camp prisoners includes various aspects of interest
for
specialists of many different fields, such as medicine, sociology, and psychology. A number of recent
publications
on this subject have concentrated on the problems of children of camp survivors, a problem that should be
regarded
not only as scientific but also as social, as it concerns a great number of the whole population: many
individuals
and families, parents, siblings, widows, and orphans that were left after the concentration camp period. In
the
majority of cases, their normal course of life was radically changed by the tragic fate of those who were
usually
the most active members of the family, who became involved in risky conspiracy activities or took part in
partisan
activities, and were caught and imprisoned by the Gestapo.

In some cases, prisoners managed to survive the camp but returned home seriously ill. They usually gave up
all
thoughts of the family, at least in the first period after liberation, because they themselves required help
and
care. Thus, this became a very difficult problem in the first years after the war. The problem was caused by
the
permanent or temporary disability of the former prisoners, and was left unsolved and neglected because there
were
many other important matters, for instance, those connected with the restoration of the country and society.

It often happened that even those former prisoners who were ill had to undertake professional work, because
of
their
difficult financial situation and because they had to provide for the needs of their families. Frequently, a father
who came home from the camp had to care for his children who were left without their mother, who was
separated,
imprisoned or dead.

There were also prisoners who managed to find partners with similarly hard experiences and decided to live
together
after liberation without setting up a family. Children were not always the main purpose in such
relationships.
It
often happened that despite all efforts and medical treatment, some of the former prisoners, especially
women,
remained infertile due to irreversible changes. Thus, only a small number of the camp survivors managed to
set
up
normal families and have children. Investigations made by some authors (such as Kempisty, 1979) indicated
that
children in such families were different from children of parents who had not been persecuted.

This was an extensive problem that required synthetic investigation from at least four perspectives:
biological
(e.g. genetic changes), psychological, psychiatric, and social-pedagogical. It would, of course, be
impossible
to
discuss all aspects in this present work. The above remarks, however, are meant to emphasise the fact that
the
investigation into adult offspring, even made many years after their birth, cannot ignore the historical
background
of this problem.

The investigation described in this work was carried out in 1977 and concerned adult offspring of
concentration
camp
prisoners. It aimed at formulating an answer to the question of whether the psychosomatic after- effects of
the
camp
experiences were transmitted to children born after the camp, and whether such a transmission had the
character
of
social heritage.

Similar research problems were already dealt with around 1968 in different countries and concerned
adolescent
children whose parents were persecuted during the Occupation (Bios, 1968; Brody, 1971; Furman, 1971;
Kerstenberg,
1974; Krystal, 1968; Laufer, 1970; Lipkowitz, 1974; Rosenberg, 1970; Sigal, 1971; Sigal et al., 1973;
Trossmann,
1968). However, the usual subjects of the examinations were only children who were referred to a doctor or a psychologist because of various pathological symptoms, somatic or psychological. The peculiarities of these
disorders have always been stressed, and are usually connected with inappropriate attitudes of parents, the
former
prisoners – their aggressive behaviour, or an unfavourable home atmosphere, which exerted a negative
influence
on
the development of the child’s personality. The literature on the subject has already been discussed in more
detail
(Dominik and Teutsch, 1978).

More recent examinations, the results of which were presented during the sixth FIR International Medical
Congress in
Prague in 1976, dealt both with medical and psycho-sociological problems (Edel, 1976; Heftier, 1976; Kahn,
1976).
For instance, Klimkova-Deutschova (1970) observed characteristic disorders in psychological and physical
development, vegetative disorders, convulsions, and encephalopathy, as well as poorer capacities for
adjustment
in
persons born after the camp period. She assumed that such states were primarily conditioned by somatic and
metabolic
changes in their parents, especially in mothers, after starvation and somatic emaciation in the camp.

Based on medical and sociological examinations carried out in the years 1973-1976, Kempisty (1976, 1979)
observed a high level of social disintegration in the families as well as educational difficulties and behavioural
disturbances
in the children.

All literature discussing the examinations of former prisoners’ children, who either reported as patients or
were
chosen as subjects of investigation by chance, points to a psychological and somatic pathology greater than
in
comparable groups of children with parents who were not persecuted.

The examinations of the former prisoners’ children made in 1977 were different from the previous ones. They
were
performed on adults (the youngest subject was 18 years old) and using a clinical psychiatry method allowing
the
establishment of a number of unspecific factors conditioning the process of personality development, which
also
enabled a psychiatric diagnosis of the whole group to be made. This in turn led to the uniform estimation of
both
the basic group and the comparative one not described here, but at the same time limited the number of
subjects
in
both groups.

Method

Before the basic examinations were attempted, a pilot sample was made. The pilot group consisted of 15
subjects
and
included patients with neuroses as well as volunteers who applied for examination through the Society of the
Former
Auschwitz Prisoners. At least one parent of each subject was a victim of Nazi persecution during the
Occupation.

The basic group included 50 subjects not younger than 18 and born after their mothers or fathers had come
back
home
from the camp. The period spent in the camp by an imprisoned parent, not shorter than three years,
constituted
another criterion for qualifying subjects for this group. Other criteria included the maintenance of the
whole
family until a subject was 18 years old (in order to eliminate unspecified pathology, which might result
from
the
earlier loss of parents), permanent residence in Kraków, and membership of at least one parent in one of the
clubs
for former prisoners. Lists of club members who had children born after the war were prepared before the
examination
(clubs of the former prisoners of Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald).

One further principle was that only one child of a given family could take part in the examinations, and
that
the
child was chosen randomly (in each family the first, the second or subsequent child born after the camp was
examined). This principle was dictated by the assumption that the subject matter of the investigation was
individual
features of the person and not a model of former prisoners’ family life. Moreover, it would be difficult to
make
all
the members of the family agree to participate in the examinations as was done in the pilot group.

Information about each subject came from three sources: Firstly, a personal examination, with a questionnaire
with
open questions, and personal remarks that might arise during the examination and would refer to the
subject’s
personality, general atmosphere of the examinations, etc. The second source of information was a questionnaire
completed by the subject’s mother, and the third a questionnaire completed by the father.

Before the examinations and introduction of the subjects to the questionnaire, they were informed about the
purpose
of the investigation and guaranteed anonymity. No potential candidates refused to participate in the
examinations;
on the contrary, all of them were very motivated and interested in the problems of the investigation; they
asked
many questions, and sometimes asked for medical advice about their everyday problems. Only in a few cases
were
parents reluctant to allow their children to participate in the examinations and opposed to a doctor
contacting
their children. The reasons for this were probably that such families wanted to be detached from the
memories of
the
war and camp, or they did not want to disclose certain family problems.

A general ethical problem arose as a natural consequence of such an investigation. To what extent can a psychiatrist
intervene in the lives of those who have not reported to him as patients and to what extent can the problems
that
are dealt with during the examination positively or negatively influence the further lives of the subjects
and
their
interpersonal relationships with others? Theoretically, it is possible that, for instance, discussion about
the
present relationship between the subject and his mother will evoke some additional emotions and change the
relationship. Similarly, one of the questions included in the questionnaire was whether the subject had ever
considered the problem of morality in the camp, the moral attitude of his parent imprisoned there and why he
managed
to survive the camp. This might lead to speculation about whether the parent was really so perfect and might
influence the mutual relationship between the parent and child. The situation mentioned above, however, had
to
be
considered as a necessary risk of a psychiatric examination that might be compensated for by results that
could
prove useful even beyond psychiatric institutions.

The following techniques were used in the investigation:

1. A questionnaire to be completed during the examination consisting of five parts:

personal data;

biographic data including past illnesses, educational problems, relationship with peers, distortions of
behaviour, sexual life, choice of profession, progress of work, and the relationship with the
procreative
family
of the subject;

questions concerning the personality profile of the subject, his view of the world, self-estimation,
relationship with other people;

a group of questions concerning relations with the parent who had been imprisoned in the camp and with
the
one
who was not a camp prisoner, mutual manifestation of feelings, educational attitudes of the parents,
especially
those exposed during adolescence, present relationship with the parents, and finally personality
profiles of
both parents and the estimation of their married life;

a group of questions concerning the relationship with the parent who was a former camp prisoner and the
way
he
was perceived in the context of his concentration camp past; questions aimed at collecting information
about
the
degree to which a parent who was a former prisoner introduced his camp past in the atmosphere of his
family
life; and finally questions about the subject’s attitude towards the camp, the war and the Germans.

At the end of the examination, each subject was presented with a list of values and life purposes. The list
comprised 19 purposes and values and the subjects were asked to choose five and order them according to how
important they were for them. The same task was performed by the parents of the subjects. The information
obtained
permitted comparison of purposes and values regarded as primary in the examined and control groups and they
helped
to determine whether the purposes and values chosen by the parents (and, importantly, which parent,) were
consistent
or not with the purposes and values chosen by their children. Thus, an indirect conclusion about identification
with
one of the parents could be made.

2. Questionnaires for the parents were different for females and males and for respondents who were and were
not
former prisoners.

The questionnaire for a parent who had been imprisoned in the camp included questions concerning his
past
somatic illnesses and psychological ailments that dated back to the time of the war and were still
present,
and
methods of medical treatment; the next group of questions was connected with some aspects of the camp
period
and
after-effects that could be observed in the subsequent social and family life of the subject. These
questions
corresponded to questions asked to the child and to those in the questionnaire prepared for spouses who
were
not
camp prisoners. The next questions concerned marriage and the spouse. The last group of questions aimed
at
collecting information about the mutual relationship with the child, the relationship between the child
and
the
other parent, educational attitudes of the respondent, psychological and somatic ailments of the child,
expectations concerning the child, anxiety and the sense of guilt for the child’s health and fortune;

The questionnaire for the parent who had not been imprisoned in the camp included questions about his
health
state (past and present), and about the state of health of his spouse who was a camp prisoner and
after-effects
of his camp experiences, which corresponded to the questions directed to the child. The questions about
married
life and relationship with the child were identical to those asked of the parent who was a former camp
prisoner.

The questionnaire directed to the parent who was a former prisoner was completed by all but four fathers who
were
former prisoners (two were dead and two chose not to cooperate). No mothers who were former camp prisoners
refused
to complete the questionnaire.

Data was obtained from 29 fathers and 17 mothers who were former camp prisoners. The most numerous group
comprised
fathers and mothers who had children when they were between 30-39 years old. The oldest father was 49 when
his
child
was born and the oldest mother was 42 (cf. Table I).

The next phase of the investigation comprised examinations of the comparative group, selected by a matching
method
from Krakow inhabitants whose parents had not been imprisoned in the concentration camps.

Table I: Number of parents – former prisoners

Characteristics of the examined group

Out of a 75-person address list, only 53 persons could be examined (three of the potential subjects,
children of
parents both of whom were former camp prisoners, were not included in the examined group). As a result, 50
persons
were examined: 22 women and 28 men. Half of the total number of men were born before 1950, that is, in the
period
particularly difficult for many former prisoners regarding health and material conditions. The other half
were
born
after 1950 (more women than men were born before 1950: altogether, there were four persons more in the group
born
immediately after the war). The majority of subjects were children born as first or only children after the
camp,
and there were very few born third in the family (cf. Table II).

Table II: Children born after the camp in the examined family

Marital status: half of the subjects were married (there were more married women than men, one of the men
had
been
married twice, one was divorced, and four women were divorced). There were twenty single persons but only
seven
of
them were more than 25 years old and the remaining thirteen persons were most often pupils or students who
were
still single.

Thirty subjects, 60 percent, had higher education, with largely equal proportions of women and men. The
decision
to
obtain higher education was probably conditioned by family background since in half of the families at least
one
had
higher education. When the subjects were classified according to different education levels, those who had
basic
professional education were included in the elementary level, post-secondary courses were included in the
secondary
level, and the level of higher education comprised both full- time and part-time students.

In order to avoid any possible misunderstandings it should be emphasised that the purpose of the preliminary
examinations described here was neither to specify the number of sick or the percentage of pathological
disorders in
the population of the former prisoners’ offspring. Neither was it to specify the number of persons with
social
deviations, because the group was selected on a different basis and did not constitute a sample
representative
for
the whole population of the former prisoners and their children. Thus, this present work does not analyse
after-effects of the war, Occupation, and persecution in the second generation.

In order to make a psychiatric analysis and use an accepted method that would allow the specification of
family
relationships, the subjects and both (not divorced) parents had to be available to the researcher. The
investigation
did not deal with all the children in the family but only with one child chosen at random, which, however,
did
not
mean that the child was the one who was most ill. On the contrary, there were many families with children
suffering
from serious psychiatric disorders, and it was still their brother or sister who participated in the
examinations.

Moreover, in order to include a child in the examined group it was necessary to obtain both his parents’
consent
and
the consent of the subject himself. It was also necessary for both the parents and the child to live in
Kraków
to be
available for personal examinations (a questionnaire might be sent by post) and mainly to make the group of
subjects
demographically uniform. The principle that consent was necessary to take part in the examinations
eliminated
those
who did not want to exhibit their sick children and who did not want to disclose certain negative aspects of
their
families. All persons personally known to the researchers were also excluded from the examination.

Such a selection was necessary to analyse parent-children relations, children’s personalities, mechanisms of
identification, types of social adjustment, and all other aspects that would be impossible to investigate if
the
families were not carefully selected.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the contents of the questionnaire and statements made by the subjects
about
their parents cannot be treated as adequately reflecting the reality of the examined families. Naturally,
such
communication cannot be complete. It was sufficient for the purpose of the examination, but we must not
forget
the
subjective character of the statements or the fact that some phenomena were left unnoticed despite all good
intentions by the subjects. For instance, it would be very difficult to estimate the percentage of
psychological
disorders, which was definitely lowered in such a situation.

Former prisoner parents in the eyes of their children

A further short comment is required for the characteristics of former prisoners made by their examined
offspring,
their relationship with the parent who was a former camp prisoner, the interest in his camp experiences, and
their
attitude to the Germans.

Almost all subjects perceived some features in their previously imprisoned parents that they connected with
the
camp
experiences, and the majority could observe certain camp habits that were still present in everyday life.
The
most
commonly noted features enumerated both by daughters and by sons and mentioned equally frequently about
their
formerly imprisoned mothers and fathers, were nervousness and irritability. Other features, however, were
different
with regard to the fathers and to the mothers, as estimated by both their sons and daughters. Fathers who
had
been
prisoners were perceived as impulsive, strict, aggressive, brutal, bossy, using ‘SS-methods’ at home, and
introducing ‘KZ rigour at home’; they were usually described as standoffish and stubborn.

Such features as avarice, thrift, collecting things, and keeping different things for a long time, were
enumerated
as of secondary importance. Only very few subjects mentioned depression, breakdowns, anxiety, alcohol abuse,
exaggerated kindness or lack of kindness, lack of reaction to other people’s problems or naivety, too much
confidence in people, excessive activities, specially strong bonds with the family or lack of interest in
the
family, changes of ideology and hierarchy of values, withdrawal from religiousness, or atheism. As might be
observed, radically different features were sometimes associated with the father’s imprisonment in the camp.

Women prisoners in barracks at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp

Mothers who had been camp prisoners were first of all perceived as nervous and irritable but also as
suffering
from
anxiety, depression, a lack of joy in life, nightmares about the camp, secretiveness, suspiciousness, lack
of
confidence in people, sensitivity to bad and harm done to other people, intolerance to violence, and
acquiring
different valuable abilities. Aggression and domination were very rarely mentioned. Those distinct
differences
might
be explained in two ways: all the unpleasant negative features of their fathers were ascribed to the camp
influence
and thus ‘forgiven’ in a way, the subjects were able to find the motives and justification. There was no
such
‘forgiveness’ towards their mothers, despite the fact that, judging from other statements made about the
general
characteristics of the mothers, mothers who were former camp prisoners possessed features that might be
described as
negative, unpleasant, or difficult to endure.

Fathers were more frequently estimated as brutal and strict and mothers as gentle, which probably resulted
from
the
fact that such features that had always been connected with the two different genders became grotesquely
intensified
in the light of the camp influence. It might also be possible that KZ-Syndrome, from which majority of
parents
of
the examined group suffered, developed in a more distinct form in men, thus was easier perceived and
experienced
by
the offspring.

Although characteristic features and pathological symptoms in the parents were perceived by almost all
examined
subjects, habits brought from the camp could be noticed by less than half of the subjects, regardless of
their
gender and the gender of their formerly imprisoned parents. One habit that was most often perceived both in
fathers
and mothers was a special attitude towards food. Supplies of food supplies were amassed, ‘nothing can be
wasted,
everything has to be eaten up’, ‘she eats greedily, quickly’, ‘she is afraid that there might not be enough
food’,
‘she is happy when there is a lot of food’, ‘she has an exaggerated respect for bread’. Extreme forms were
present
but less frequent, such as accumulating remains, eating decaying food, making children eat rutabaga and
seeds to
know the taste, and to learn that one can eat almost everything when hungry.

Thrift and hoarding were frequently mentioned, as well as the opposite: the lack of interest in material
goods,
complete abnegation, not buying things for the family ‘because we don’t need anything’. One of the subjects
stated
that the father, a former prisoner, used to walk back and forth in his flat as if he were in a cell; someone
else
was afraid of dogs, especially Alsatians, and in one case bright light at home evoked anxiety and unpleasant
associations in the father. Another observation made was that striped clothes, objects, or fabric were
forbidden
because the former prisoner parents could not bear the sight of them. Someone else identified his father’s
frugal
way of life with his camp habits. Too strict discipline towards oneself and others was similarly explained.
Such
observations were consistent with the statements made by the former prisoners themselves (Jagoda et al.,
1976).

An example of a different judgement was that of a heroic parent. The parent was a source of pride because,
although
he had suffered a lot, he was alive and managed to be active and efficient in everyday life. Such statements
were
always made eagerly, openly. Although for some of the subjects the question was a surprise, they found an
answer
very quickly. Others had already thought about it earlier and thus they could justify their statements, and
add
their own comments.

The most frequent causes of pride were the conspiracy activities of the parents before their imprisonment,
as
well
as the fact that they had gone through such hard experiences, helped others, passed through martyrdom and
yet
‘they
did not lose their moral principles’, ‘they managed to maintain their human dignity’.

More than a half of the subjects were proud of their parents who had been prisoners, and the pride was most
often
expressed by daughters of Holocaust survivor mothers. Fathers were less frequently perceived as heroes. This
might
result from the fact that in a situation of war, extreme danger, and the menace of death, heroic features
were
more
easily associated with women.

There were also subjects who did not see their parents as heroes. They stated that they would never think of
associating such features with their parents since, as they believed, it was the duty of every single person
to
participate in conspiracy at that time, and imprisonment in the camp was very often accidental, as was the
fact
of
surviving the camp period.

A privileged position in the family was usually reserved for the formerly imprisoned parent. Such a tendency
was
strongest in the spouse who had not been imprisoned. If it was also acquired by the children, however, it
was
usually manifested by assuming a defensive attitude of forgiving unpleasant forms of behaviour, special care
and
understanding during illnesses, and the tendency to avoid any possible situations that might be unpleasant
for
the
parent. The subject stated, ‘I always wanted to have good marks at school so that my father would not worry
because
he had worried so much in his life’, or ‘I always forgive my mother when she unjustly scorns or hits me
because
her
nerves are shattered after the camp’.

Some subjects had a sense of guilt because they felt they did not fulfil their parents’ expectations or
disappointed
their formerly imprisoned parents even in unimportant everyday matters.

Half of the subjects stated that their formerly imprisoned parents had a privileged position in the family
although
the parents who had been prisoners were frequently not aware of this fact as the contents of the
questionnaires
clearly suggested. This led to frustration in some children.

The subjects who reserved privileged positions for their persecuted parents were always persons who treated
their
parents as heroes and always tried to behave in such a way that their mothers or fathers would be pleased.
On
the
other hand, only one-fifth of the children positively answered the question, ‘Did you try to please your
parent
because she/he had been imprisoned in the camp and had suffered a lot?’ Half of the subjects talked about
privileges, heroism and pride taken in their parents, and the majority maintained that they tried to please
the
parents not because they had been in the camp but because they admired their parents, were impressed by
their
attitudes, or because they were ill and deserved sympathy.

Numerous subjects were aware of a feeling towards their formerly imprisoned parents as a reaction to their
behaviour; their impetuosity, exaggerated strictness, discipline, and rigour. They admitted that even though
they
regarded their parents as heroic and were proud of them, they did not grant any privileges to their parents,
did
nothing to please them (usually their fathers) since they always expected rejection, unjustified punishment,
or
ignorance towards their actions of gratification. Their fathers, they said, were emotionally too distant
from
the
family, nothing could interest them, were always reserved, and lived in the past connected with the camp.

The attitude towards the survivor parents was often expressed through the fact that the subjects compared
themselves, their values, and features of character to their survivor parents. This aspect, however, should
be
regarded separately with reference to the gender of the child and parent. It is commonly known that all
children
compare themselves to their parents of the same sex according to the principles of the process of
identification.
Thus, such a phenomenon is characteristic not only for the group of examined children. It might be
interesting,
however, to study this process in the children of the former prisoners.

In the group of ‘father-survivors and sons’ subjects, half of the subjects frequently compared themselves to
their
fathers but the majority of such sons estimated themselves lower than their fathers. They believed that they
could
not compare to their fathers regarding abilities, morality, social status, or personality features, despite
the
fact
that the sons were adult at the time of examinations, independent and had their own social status. Only two
sons
out
of ten who made comparisons considered themselves ‘better’ than their fathers, and one thought he was his
father’s
‘equal’.

In the group of’ mother-survivors and daughters’ subjects, more than half of the daughters compared
themselves to
their mothers and the comparisons were always negative for daughters; they were ‘worse’ than their mothers.
None
of
the daughters considered herself ‘better’ than her mother.

Among the ‘father-survivors and daughters’ subjects, (a mixed-sex group) the majority of daughters were also
‘worse’
when compared to their fathers.

Finally in the group of ‘mother-survivors and sons’ subjects, (also a mixed-sex group) the comparison did
not
result
in any explicit conclusions that might be characteristic.

Analyses of the results in the two first groups allowed the observation that children of the same gender as
their
parents had a tendency to see themselves in a worse light. This, in turn, raised the question whether the
fact
that
a child who perceived its parent as a hero set back the child’s individual progress. The result might also
be
the
opposite: the child became active and motivated and wanted to be equal or better than the formerly
imprisoned
parent.

The problem of making comparisons between children and their survivor- parents is connected with the
perception
of
similarities between children and such parents. As has already been mentioned, children usually perceive
similarities between themselves and parents of the same gender. Therefore, such a phenomenon was also
present in
the
examined group. The subjects listed the following similar features: stubbornness, persistence, consistency,
calm,
self-control, sincerity, frankness, discipline, active attitude towards life, resourcefulness, various
talents
and
hobbies, aspiration for education. Such similar features were also mentioned in the context of the parents
who
had
not been previously imprisoned. Nervousness, explosiveness, ill humour, depression, dominating the family,
despotism
— these were rarely mentioned, but usually in the context of survivor-fathers. They never appeared in the
context of
fathers who were not camp prisoners.

Slightly different features were mentioned when the similarity between daughters and survivor-mothers was
taken
into
consideration. All the examined daughters felt similar to their mothers and they most often enumerated
self-control,
responsibility, peacefulness, friendliness, and optimism. The following, negatively tinged, features were
also
mentioned: sorrow, secretiveness, anxiety states, shyness, and oversensitivity to misfortune. It should be
added
that sons compared themselves to their formerly imprisoned mothers in the category of features regarded as
positive.

The negative common features mentioned above were identical with those features of the survivor-parents
that, in
the
opinion of the children, were associated with concentration camp experiences. On the other hand, the
positive
features of similarity between children and parents were the features that, according to the children, were
essential for surviving the camp.

The presumed features that, according to the children, were essential for surviving the camp hell by their
parents,
for saving their lives and morale, were regarded as a very important issue. A question asked directly to the
subjects might be too controversial, which was why such a question was asked only at the end of the
examination
when
positive contact with the subjects was already established and more sincere and open statements were
possible.

Only ten subjects out of the whole group, that is one-fifth, claimed that they were unable to say anything
and
that
they had never wondered why their parents had managed to survive the camp. For the rest of the subjects the
following features of their parents’ character were essential: psychological resistance, strong character,
good
adjustment, strong will to survive, the ability to offer something oneself to other people, cleverness, and
resourcefulness. The second group of features that were most frequently given were good health, physical
resistance,
and young age. The subjects also mentioned favourable profession, favourable work, and knowledge of the
language.
Finally, such reasons as helping other people (including Germans), and a strong sense of family ties and
home
were
also enumerated. As it may be seen, the estimations made by the subjects were almost identical with the ones
made by
the former prisoners themselves, and thus it may be assumed that the statements made by the children
reflected
the
information they were offered by their parents.

The group of children who could not express any opinion on the subjects comprised those who were not offered
any
information about their parents’ camp lives and who did not show any great interest in the camp or war.

In such a context, the question about the parents’ moral attitudes was well accepted by all the subjects.
Thirty
subjects had thought about it earlier in connection with the stories told by their parents or their parents’
camp
mates, or such thoughts were raised by literature and film. However, only five subjects had doubts about
their
parents’ morality in the camp, which might be controversial in the light of our non-camp criteria of
morality.
Such
a tendency was largely only observed in the group of ‘father-survivors and sons’, but since that group was
most
numerous no conclusions can be made on this basis. The remaining 25 subjects, when asked about their
parents’
moral
attitudes, estimated their parents’ morality as very positive without hesitation. Their convictions were
based
on
the stories told by their fathers’ or mothers’ friends or on the books in which their parents were described
in
camp
situations.

Very close relationships and identification with the formerly imprisoned parent were manifested in the
feeling
of
affiliation with the group of the former camp prisoners, which had always been a reference group for many
former
prisoners. As the investigation made with the former prisoners suggested (e.g. Jagoda et al., 1978;
Kępiński,
1970;
Orwid, 1964), former prisoners had always been very close and their relations were strong enough to last for
many
years after the war. There were, however, also groups of prisoners who avoided contact with their camp mates
and
wanted to cut off all possible bonds with their past. None of the former prisoners was able to be
indifferent
towards their group of former companions.

In the examined group, 38 subjects stated that their mothers or fathers were very closely related to ‘the
camp
environment’ and that they constituted a kind of a specific ‘family’. But only 17 subjects, less than half,
felt
like members of that ‘family’. This might support the hypothesis that only a small fraction of the younger
generation feels connected with the group of former prisoner, their parents’ comrades. Those who managed to
develop
such bonds emphasised how strong they were. The friends of formerly imprisoned parents were the closest
people
to
them, after parents, closer than their relatives. They had called them ‘uncle’ or ‘aunt’ since their
childhood,
and
‘uncle’ or ‘aunt’ took part in all important family events and were always offered the greatest confidence
and
the
best feelings. The subjects often took part in the club meetings, meetings organised at Christmas,
celebrations
of
the liberation of the camp, and celebrations of other events.

Interest in the camp problems and the problem of the parents’ past was also a subject of the investigation.
The
interest was manifested in frequent discussions about the camp with their parents, usually also with parents
who
were not former prisoners, brothers, sisters, friends and acquaintances, and later with spouses. The
subjects
would
read books collected by their parents and later bought with their own money, and watched TV programmes and
films
about the camp.

Some of the subjects were remarkably interested in the issue of the camp; for instance, one of the subjects
wrote
about concentration camp issues in his final school exams because he was well acquainted with it. Another
subject
decided to undertake work in the Auschwitz Museum, which, he maintained, was accidental, and he later
changed
his
place of work. He is, however, about to write his doctorate thesis on issues relating to the camp.

More than a half of the examined group showed interest in the camp period; they would say that the interest
was
greater in their childhood and adolescence. The surplus of information, and constant presence of this topic
in
art
and literature, resulted in the fact that they were surfeited with it and now they did not feel like
returning
again
to those issues. There were also statements suggesting fearful attitudes towards the camp. Such subjects
confessed
that they never wanted to listen to camp stories at home, avoided information given in papers and books, and
were
not able to watch films about the camp. It evoked unpleasant feelings, brought anxious dreams, a sense of
danger,
tension; someone even fainted in the cinema whilst watching a film about the camp. In nine subjects, a tendency
to
isolate themselves from and avoid camp topics was noted.

Interest in the camp and their parents’ past experiences was also exhibited by visiting camp-museums. The
majority
of the subjects had visited the camps, for instance, at the Auschwitz Museum and other camps in Poland and
abroad.
They usually went there with school friends on organised excursions whilst they were at secondary school.
Some
of
the subjects visited camps several times. Some went there for the first time even before they started
school,
others
only when they were adults. Only twelve subjects had never visited any concentration camps and nine of them
did
not
go there because they avoided any contact with issues relating to concentration camps.

Around half of the subjects recollected their visit to the camp as a terribly shocking experience that
brought
long-lasting sorrow and constant thoughts of the parent imprisoned there. Some could not recover from the
shock
for
several days or even weeks. In general, those who visited the camp in their adolescence and later were more
shocked,
which was only natural.

It appeared to be an interesting question as to whether the second generation of the former prisoners
experienced a desire for revenge against the Germans, the Nazis, the persecutors of their parents, and what their present
attitudes were towards the German language and German people. Only 14 subjects stated that a desire for
revenge
towards the persecutors of their parents had been present since their childhood and they had never been able
to
get
rid of such a feeling even though they knew how absurd it was. Some subjects thought of revenge when they
were
children but they no longer felt this when they became adults. All such statements appeared to emphasise the
maturity of the distance they had towards the historical past of their parents (cf. Dominik and Teutch,
1978;
Kempisty, 1979).

Nineteen subjects expressed negative attitudes towards the German language, country, and people. They did
not
make
any general statements, however, but rather quoted specific situations, and did not connect them with their
parents’
past. Only a few subjects said that their negative feelings were probably stronger than in those who did not
have
parents with a camp past.

One of the aims of the investigation was to obtain an answer to the question of whether the subjects felt an
‘otherness’ in comparison with other young people whose parents had not gone through such traumatic
experiences.
Thirty-seven percent of the subjects gave positive answers. This percentage would be higher if we took into
consideration not only direct answers but also the statements made about the similarities between the
subjects
and
their formerly imprisoned parents when they listed common features that they thought were also the features
essential for their parents’ ability to survive the camp. To illustrate the above remark it would be best to
quote
typical statements:

‘My attitude towards death is different but it is not fear’ (a Jagiellonian University student, 22);
‘different
attitude towards war and camp problems, more serious, rational’ (an engineer, 32); ‘what makes me different
is
discipline and strictness in life’ (an economist, 30); ‘I approach various problems in a different way and I react
differently to difficulties, distress, people’s complaints’ (an engineer, 32); ‘I think about my father’s
camp
experiences very often, I live with his memories’ (a technician, 28); ‘the doctors say that my
short-sightedness
is
connected with the fact that my father suffered from typhoid fever in the camp’ (a clerk, 30); ‘I grew up
too
early,
I took on too many responsibilities, I am very resourceful’ (a technician, 25); ‘nervousness and constant
fear
of
death’ (an engineer, 31); ‘permanent very strong fear of war, irrational fear for children’ (an archivist,
30);
‘I
hate agglomerations, crowds, social life, orders, violence’ (a driver-mechanic, 27); ‘a different hierarchy
of
needs
and values, a different attitude to material goods’ (a pupil, 18); ‘great tolerance and understanding’ (a
teacher,
26); ‘I can neither talk about the war nor read books or watch films on this topic, it evokes fear,
aversion,
great
unpleasantness’ (an art historian, 27); ‘I am often sad, reflective without reason’ (an engineer, 28). A statement
made by the son of the parents who were both camp prisoners: ‘I have closer contact with my parents, I take
care
of
them when they are ill, they need special care, and I know that they would do everything for me’. Another
statement:
‘I am different because my father did not devote enough of his time to me, he did not develop my interests,
he
closed himself in his concentration camp past’.

The statements were various: some were about attitudes to life, war, death, others made the camp responsible
for
their failures, and there were some who suggested a certain difference in psychological states, tempers, or
even
somatic disabilities.

Results of the questionnaires completed by the subjects’ parents

As was already indicated in the description of the method, the questionnaire, among other problems, dealt
with
the
health of the parents of the examined group. The state of health of the survivors in their own estimation
was
described in one of the detailed sections of the questionnaire. Serious multi-organ illnesses had developed
in
76
percent of the female respondents. The most frequent ones were rheumatism, tuberculosis, anaemia,
circulatory
disorders, hypertension, motor apparatus disorders, and digestive tract illnesses.

In the psychological sphere, the woman survivors mentioned symptoms that might be classified as long-term
depressive-anxious syndrome, with progressive asthenia. The symptoms were typical of former prisoners;
manifested in
nightmares, anxiety, bad moods, a sense of inefficiency, and a passive attitude to life, and were included
in
the
so-called KZ-Syndrome along with somatic symptoms (Kępiński, 1970; Kłodziński, 1971) (20 percent women).

Regarding the frequency of occurrence, the next group of symptoms seen in the mothers was KZ-Syndrome with
features
of a depressive type of psycho-organic syndrome, primarily characteropathic symptoms, where depressive and
anxiety
symptoms were accompanied by changeable moods, irritability, explosiveness, insomnia, and anxiety (24
percent).

The next group included women who suffered mainly from characteropathic symptoms, in whom moods of
depression
were
replaced by uniform or higher than normal spirits, excessive activities, uneasiness, irritability, a tendency to
create conflict situations with others (12 percent). Ten women (59 percent) had been treated by a general
practitioner or in a psychiatric hospital.

Regarding the male survivors, only 29 gave information about their health (as was stated above, two persons
died
and
two did not complete their questionnaires). Serious multi-organ illnesses were quoted by 18 persons (62
percent
of
the whole group), fewer than in the case of women. Tuberculosis, digestive tract disturbances, and
circulatory
disorders were most frequently mentioned.

Regarding psychiatric symptoms, a syndrome classified as depressive- anxious was most frequent (20 men; 69
percent)
with the same picture as with the women. Other symptoms included depression with characteropathy (in five
men),
characteropathies (in four men), delusional psychoses (this symptom was ascribed to one of the men based on
information acquired from his wife and son), alcohol abuse together with one of the above syndromes (in four
respondents).

The majority of men had been treated with respect to their psychiatric ailments and four persons had stayed
in a psychiatric hospital.

The illnesses of the other parent, who was not a camp prisoner, must also have influenced the development of
the
child. As the answers to the questionnaires suggested (44 persons sent their answers, 6 did not complete the
questionnaires because they either refused to do so or were dead), their state of health was much better
than
the
state of health of their spouses. However, as many as 30 persons, 68 percent, had suffered from serious or
moderately serious illnesses since the war. Usually those were illnesses of one system or organ and at the
time
of
the examination, the number of persons with serious somatic ailments was even greater.

Thirty-eight parents who were camp prisoners (86 percent) had neurotic symptoms in the form of irritability,
nervousness, headaches, changeable moods, insomnia, and anxiety which appeared after the war or later or
which
could
sometimes be observed during the examinations and which recurred periodically. Almost one-quarter of the
sick
underwent treatment in general or psychiatric units and three persons were patients of psychiatric
hospitals.

As might be observed, the other parent was also often ill and less efficient. The influence of this factor
should
also be taken into consideration when the assessment of the after-effects of illnesses of the formerly
imprisoned
parent on the health of his child and emotional climate at home is discussed.

On the other hand, all the evaluations of statements made by parents who were not former prisoners should be
made
very carefully since they could exaggerate their ailments, as they were aware that their partners suffered
from
so
many illnesses.

It might be interesting to consider whether in the opinion of the subjects, their parents frequently talked
about
the camp at home, whether they frequently told their children about their experiences, or whether they
discussed
such problems at all with them.

Half of the respondents (fathers and mothers in equal proportions) stated that they rarely talked about the
camp
at
home, especially in the presence of their children. They believed that their children did not want to hear
about
it
and that, regardless, they would not believe it, and that it would never be possible to describe those years
adequately. They were also afraid that their children would not understand or that they even might ridicule
them.
One of the mothers confessed, ‘I prefer not to talk about it because my husband keeps talking about some
unimportant
events from the Occupation period and the children have had enough of it and laugh at his stories’ (the
father
was
not imprisoned in a camp).

Approximately one-third of fathers and mothers (also in equal proportions) stated that they often talked
about
the
camp at home and during times with their camp mates that frequently took place in the presence of children
and
that
their children took an active part in this.

Several persons (usually mothers) stated that they never talked about the camp when their children were
around
because they did not want to return to their past and they did not want their children to listen to such
stories.
Their children were already nervous and oversensitive, so why should they tell them about those horrid
events?

The majority of the formerly imprisoned parents believed that their children and the younger generation as a whole
should know the truth about the camp and Occupation. Even those who never talked about the camp were of the
same
opinion. They believed their children should learn the truth but not from them. Some gave the following
motives
for
the necessity to transmit such knowledge to the younger generation: ‘The children should know that the
purpose
was
to exterminate the Polish nation’; ‘they should know the history of their nation’; ‘historical truth should
be
known
by every generation’; they must know how people were treated in the camp’; ‘they should know how to be able
to
protect themselves and know how to behave’; ‘they should be able to understand their fathers and their
states of
mind’; ‘they should know so that they would never be taken in by good Germans’; ‘they should learn the truth
expressed in a personal way and not read and listen about exaggerated heroism’.

Only three mothers and two fathers believed that their children should not know too much about the camp,
that
there
was no point in returning to those problems, that the children would never understand and that they should
be
spared
such stories, that time would cure everything, and that it would be no use returning to the past.

When asked whether they, the former prisoners, perceived their children as ‘different’ from the children of
parents
who were never camp prisoners and whether they saw effects of their stay in the camp in their children, it
appeared
that almost half of the parents noticed the after-effects of their own camp experiences in the children, or
at
least
they regarded some features of character or psychopathologic symptoms as such after- effects. Such opinions
were
much more frequent among mother- than father-survivors. The following features were usually identified with
the
after-effects of the camp experiences: nervousness, states of depression, avoiding contact with people, a sense
of
wrong, inefficiency in life, lack of attachment to the parents, difficulties in education, and somatic and
psychological illnesses.

Parent-survivors felt responsible for the fate of their children, for all their failures and often felt
guilty.
Some
of them believed they should not have had children after the camp because of their poor physical and
psychological
state, and lowered fitness and resistance. Of 17 examined mothers, 14 stated that they definitely connected
their
children’s fate with their camp experiences and nine of them had a constant sense of guilt because of it. On
the
other hand, out of 29 examined fathers, only 13 felt responsible for the fate of their children in that
sense
and 12
experienced a sense of guilt.

Thus, as can be clearly observed, it is usually mothers who believe their biological and psychological
parental
influence is important for the development and health of their children and most probably, they tried to
understand
the influence such after-effects of their camp experience might have on the health of their children. This
is
consistent with the statements about health made by mothers and fathers, former prisoners, which were quoted
above.

As already mentioned, some of the former prisoners had doubts whether they should have had children at all.
There
were also some, however, who did not believe in their abilities to procreate after the camp experiences. The
percentage of such men was rather small (20 percent) but as many as 53 percent of women had not believed
they
would
be able to become pregnant and many of them had asked for medical advice. When they bore children (their
first
or
subsequent after the camp) 35 percent of mothers were afraid they would not manage to raise their child
properly,
felt helpless, and had an unreasonable fear that an illness or even death might end the life of the baby.
More
than
half of the examined mother- and 30 percent of the father-survivors also experienced greater than usual
anxiety
about the fate of their children even when their children were adults. This was always combined with
over-protectiveness and excessive care.

It was also interesting whether the possible post-camp changes in the formerly imprisoned parent, his
exaggerated
anxiety about the fate of his child, and exaggerated sense of guilt for all difficulties and illnesses that
the
child suffered, influenced child-raising methods. Almost half of the fathers and three-quarters of the
mothers
gave
a positive answer to this question. They usually believed they were too gentle, too tolerant, never forbade
anything, and assumed over-protective attitudes towards their children. Others evaluated themselves as too
strict,
rigorous, with changeable attitudes, and inconsistent. Many respondents did not specify why their
child-raising
methods were different; they only felt they were ‘different’ and that this was connected with the camp and
its
after-effects. They appeared to believe that their children were offered a specific picture of the world,
hierarchy
of values and life purposes, which was supported by the statements made by their children, the subjects of
the
examination.

Parents who were former prisoners wanted to project a number of specific features onto their children. The
most
common were such positive features as hard working, honesty, reliability, truthfulness, and sincerity. The
other
group of features connected interpersonal relations and comprised elements of social contact: faith in man
but
also
caution in confiding in others (‘you cannot confide in everyone’), respect for people, friendliness, good-
fellowship, understanding others, loyalty, care for the weaker and wronged, and respect for parents.
Adjustment
features were also mentioned: ability to cope with difficult situations, resourcefulness, independence, and
initiative. Finally, higher values were enumerated: persistence in the fight for ideals, love of one’s
country,
faithfulness to one’s political and religious views, acquiring knowledge. It would be difficult to talk
about
the
specific character of the statements, and they can only be assessed after the comparative group has been
examined.

It appeared interesting to obtain information about special expectations on the part of the former prisoners
towards
their children, whether they wanted their children to achieve something unusual in their lives, something
great,
important, or unconventional. It turned out that such expectations were rather more characteristic of
mothers
(half
of the examined persons) than of fathers (one-third of the examined persons). Very few mothers and fathers
stated
that they expected their children to make up for everything they did not manage to perform because of the
war
and
imprisonment in the camp. The majority believed that it would never be possible to make up for those years
and
that
they had never had such expectations towards their children, that children could fulfil only realistic
expectations.

It was interesting that 59 percent of the examined parent-survivors perceived pathological neurotic features
in
their children either at the time of the examination or in the previous years. This 59 percent enumerated
such
symptoms as nervousness, explosiveness, anxiety, worse moods, indulging too freely in alcohol, distortions
in
concentration, and in some cases suicide attempts. Such opinions were confirmed by statements made by the
parents
who were not imprisoned in the camp.

The number of children who were said to possess such features was greater than the number of subjects who
perceived
such features in themselves. It would be difficult to state whether the observations made by parents were
caused
by
the fact that their children exhibited many neurotic features of behaviour in their presence. ‘Irritability’
and
‘explosiveness’ were most often emphasised by the parents. It was also probable that the subjects did not
regard
such features as pathological and did not give any information about them.

Evaluation of the examined children

Neurotic symptoms in childhood such as bedwetting, nighttime anxiety, fear of the dark, of being alone in a room,
stammering, nail-biting, plucking out hair, etc. usually did not occur as single symptoms but in syndromes.
They
appeared in 19 subjects altogether, that is, in 38 percent, more often in girls than in boys. It should be
emphasised that the girls were born in the first years after liberation. In the case of boys, the occurrence
of
the
symptoms was more uniform (they were born both in the first years after the war and later).

More serious somatic illnesses appearing before the age of 18 could be observed in 20 subjects, that is, in
40
percent, more frequently in girls than in boys; the majority, however, were children born soon after the war
and
camp period. This might have been caused by the fact that parents, especially those who were former
prisoners,
were
weak and ill, and economic and health conditions after the war were difficult for everybody. In both cases,
a ‘mark’
might have been left in the form of somatic symptoms in small children.

More serious somatic illnesses included tuberculosis, rheumatism, endocrinopathy, allergies, motor apparatus
disorders, heart muscle inflammation, infectious diseases with a difficult course and cerebral
complications,
sight
defects, and pyelonephritis (given here according to the frequency of their occurrence). It should be
emphasised
that 61 percent of the subjects who suffered from serious illnesses in their childhood were the children of
father-survivors and 21 percent were the children of mother- survivors. Thus, as it might be observed, the
sickness
rate in the children was not connected with the post-camp health problems of their mothers as has been
generally
assumed and suggested by some investigations.

Psychological ailments, in the broad meaning of the word, could be observed in 32 persons (64 percent) with
the
majority being children whose fathers had been the former prisoner. The difference in the proportions of
children
with fathers and mothers who had been prisoners, was very small (67 percent/62 percent). Thus again, the
greater
pathology of mothers was not supported in this group. The disorders mentioned above were equally distributed
in
both
sexes (cf. Table III).

Most of the subjects (half of all those with diagnosed disorders) complained of periodical neurotic symptoms
most
frequently conditioned by the situation. These were periods of exhaustion, irritability, over-excitability,
insomnia, headaches, heart pains, difficulties in concentration, drinking too much alcohol, bad moods. Some
of
the
subjects sporadically asked for medical advice, including psychiatric.

Table III: Present state of subjects’ mental health

Table IV: Personality of subjects in respect of sex

A complete clinical neurotic syndrome present at the time of the examination or in the recent past was
diagnosed
in
34 percent of the subjects with ailments in the psychological sphere, which comprised 22 percent of the
whole
group
of examined offspring. The majority of them sporadically visited a psychiatrist or general doctor; some had
regular
psychiatric treatment. Three persons had spent some time in psychiatric hospitals. Regarding symptoms,
depressive-anxious or neurasthenic neuroses were diagnosed; three persons attempted suicide (two women
because
of
problems in their marriages). The remaining disorders, presented in Table III, were of secondary importance
(post-traumatic epilepsy, two cases of psychological deficiency after meningoencephalitis).

The intellectual level of the subjects, as one of the secondary problems of the investigation, was estimated
only on
a psychiatric basis without using psychometric methods. Approximately 42 percent of the persons had a high
level
of
intelligence, 52 percent average and 6 percent lower than average.

Personality (cf. Table IV) was estimated according to the classification made by the World Health
Organisation
and
was divided into ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’. Thirty-four percent of persons were classed in the group of
irregular
personalities. The group consisted primarily of asthenic-depressive subjects with low self-esteem, uncertain
in
their lives and activities, with low energy, sometimes with the obsessive features or epileptoidal
personalities;
there were a few hysterical personalities with changeable moods, inconsistent, over-sensitive to the
judgements
made
by others, egocentric, with weak superficial emotional relations. The smallest group of subjects embodied
anti-social personality types with adjustment problems, behaviour distortions, inclination to alcohol abuse,
and
aggressive behaviour towards others and oneself (self-harming); all these features were of low frequency and
they
did not appear in all cases.

However, as already mentioned, the majority of the children had ‘regular’ personalities (66 percent) and
exhibited
emotional developments appropriate to their age, had regular interpersonal relations with others, achieved
adequate
progress in their social life, were very active, with undistorted self-estimation, had ambitious plans for
the
future, and an optimistic attitude towards their future.

As was indicated earlier when the method of research was introduced, the observation of the subjects’ places
of
residence (Kępiński, 1978) – and thus acquiring more information about the subjects – was one of the
elements of
the
examination. In the cases of some subjects, the examination could be carried out in their own residences,
and in
the
cases of others, places where they lived together with their parents. Several subjects were examined outside
their
homes on their own request. They justified this by the small size of the flat in which it would be difficult
to
find
a quiet place for a longer conversation without disturbing the life of the remaining members of the family.
Of
43
flats visited during the examinations, 34 were estimated as attractive; clean, well maintained, with great
emphasis
put on aesthetics and comfort, which pointed to the good financial situation of the hosts. As became clear
from
the
statements made by the subjects, parents usually spent all the financial compensation they received for
their
long
internment in the camp on their children’s homes.

The analysis of the examined group of offspring allowed the discrimination of two characteristic opposite
groups
of’ well’ and ‘poorly’ adjusted subjects.

The first group comprised 11 subjects (22 percent) and included highly active persons with many social
contacts,
established both in the school period and after undertaking professional work, persons who were socially and
politically committed, were members of sports clubs, people who enjoyed organised life and took an active
part
in
it. They were open, directed towards others, persons who took an active part in their professional and
family
life.

Education never caused any great difficulties, they achieved the level they aimed for, chose their
professions
according to their interests, obtained jobs which constituted a source of satisfaction and in which they
tried
to
perform as well as possible. They were ambitious, with great energy and life impetus, they were satisfied
with
what
they achieved, believed that they were independent, might provide support for others, and were positively
self-confident. They were convinced they adequately performed their social functions and roles in their
sexual
life,
and that they fulfilled the expectations of others in this respect. All had a steady partner in life and in
sex,
and
for some this was their spouse. They estimated their marriages as very good or as average, and typically had
one
or
two children. There were seven men and four women in this group, the average age was 28 years, and nine
persons
had
higher education, one secondary, and one elementary.

The second group comprised 11 subjects (22 percent). The persons classified in this group never had any
active
contact with others, always kept to themselves, exhibited withdrawn attitudes, did not like social or
organised
life, and were directed more towards themselves than towards the surrounding world. School or university
education
was difficult for them, they repeated the same classes, and frequently changed their work, which did not
bring
any
satisfaction. The choice of profession was usually accidental or made because of parental persuasion, and
did
not
correspond to their own talents and abilities. Although some of them did not have any problems with learning
and
achieved the education they desired, they were not satisfied with the type of work they performed. They
frequently
could not be promoted for many years or they worked in professions that did not correspond to their
education.
This
group included subjects, especially women, who could not undertake or continue studies because of early
marriage
and
children.

Their self-estimation was low, they felt dependent on their parents, they were convinced that they had not
achieved
anything, they were uncertain, looked for support to others and they were not able to offer support or help.
They
believed they did not fulfil their functions, as females or males, satisfactorily, both in the social and
sexual
spheres. They felt unattractive, and were convinced they fulfilled neither their own nor their parents’
expectations. The majority of them were neither married nor had a sexual partner, and the remaining ones
estimated
their marriages as conflicted, or reported that their marriages had ended with divorces.

This group comprised eight men and three women of an average age of 26 years, and only two persons had
higher
education.

The third group, the most numerous, included 38 persons (56 percent) and illustrated the proper statistical
proportions. It consisted of average persons with features of both extreme groups; the result of the
features,
however, indicated that it was closer to group one, that is, of the ‘well’ adjusted.

An attempt was made to find a correlation between ‘good’ or ‘poor’ adjustment of the offspring and the
personality
of their parents. The current progress of the investigation, however, is insufficient to find such a correlation.
Only certain tendencies could be observed. The formerly imprisoned parents of the ‘well’ adjusted group were
younger
(average age at the time when the child was born was 31), active, dynamic, with tendencies to dominate,
rigorous,
and aggressive. The parents of the ‘poorly’ adjusted group were older (36 years was the average age at the
time
the
child was born), passive, suspicious, distrustful, reserved and standoffish.

We should remember, however, that good or poor adjustment of the offspring was also influenced by
non-specific
factors, including the psychological profile of the other, non-imprisoned parent and the family atmosphere
he or
she
created.

Final remarks

The preliminary analysis presented above, undertaken with a group of children of former concentration camp
prisoners
who were born after their parents returned from the camp, is clearly inconsistent with the results of the
investigation into the second generation made both in groups of persons who asked for medical advice and in
the
groups of children chosen at random from the population of former prisoners’ children.

The good social adjustment of some persons in this group was particularly surprising because they must also
have
suffered from numerous pathological factors stemming from the imprisoned parents, as do other groups of the
second
generation. In almost all imprisoned parents, KZ-Syndrome was diagnosed, and their post-camp personality
disorders
definitely influenced their educational methods, as admitted both by themselves and their children. Such
influence
might have been negative because of too much permissiveness or too strict rigour and discipline, because of
anxiety
attitudes towards the child’s health and fate or, on the contrary, because the child was confronted with too
difficult situations as its parents suffered from a sense of guilt about the child’s health, fate,
attitudes,
etc.

However, such personality features, possibly modulated by the influence of the other parent, proved to be
harmless
to such an extent that the child managed to develop in a favourable family atmosphere. None of the examined
families
broke up before the children were 18.

Quite a high percentage of the subjects exhibited neurotic symptoms in their childhood (especially those who
were
born soon after the war), a great number suffered from serious somatic illnesses and at the time of the
examination
many suffered from periodic neurotic symptoms or even neuroses at a clinical level. A considerable number of
subjects, however, maintained normal personalities and good social adjustment.

This appeared to be connected with the fact that their survivor-parents possessed general psychosomatic
features
that enabled them to survive the camp period, and later helped them to make the decision to set up a family
and
to
have children. These were manifested in their good social adjustment, active attitude towards their
professional
work and the fact that they were financially stable.

A hypothesis may be attempted that the parents who were prisoners consciously or subconsciously influenced
the
development of such features in the personalities of their children as it would allow their children to make
up
for
all the wasted time in the camp. However, when asked directly, almost all parents denied such intentions.
This,
however, might have been an instinctive subconscious defence process against the possible transfer of one’s
own
handicap to the next generation.

It should be emphasised that hypotheses mentioned above must be restricted to the examined group. It may
happen
that
the observations and results will essentially differ after examination of the comparative group is made and
mathematical analyses that would include many non-specific factors are applied. The present work illustrates
the
general situation of a small and specific group.